I did find some articles about GG's unsuccessful runs for city council:

LAUDERDALE LAKES ... Greenwald, a Nova High School senior, is challenging three incumbents and a fourth candidate for a council seat. Only three will win. The grandson of former Councilman L.L. Greenwald, young Greenwald attempted to tackle the topics of roads and council expense accounts at Tuesday night's council meeting. "The road with the 7-Eleven," said Greenwald. "You can`t even drive on it." (Greenwald later acknowledged the store was a Tenneco and not a 7- Eleven) ...Young Candidate Stirs LakesBy Alan Cherry, Staff Writer
January 24, 1985

... Greenwald, the grandson of former Lauderdale Lakes City Council member L.L. Greenwald, is now attending George Washington University in Washington, D.C. He has joined the Young Democrats on campus and has kept his interest in government. "You might see me run again, once I finish school," Greenwald said. "That`s maybe still six or seven years off, but the wait will be worth it" ...Quiet Lauderdale Lakes Faces Year Of Unprecedented ChangeBy Alan Cherry, Staff Writer
January 1, 1986

LAUDERDALE LAKES -- The grandson of a former City Council member was physically escorted from a council meeting by Broward sheriff`s deputies on Tuesday night after refusing to leave the podium. Glenn Greenwald, 23, stepped up to the podium during the public portion of the meeting to decry the city`s committee form of government, which, Greenwald said, prevents working people from participating in city affairs ... Gereffi said the matter will be taken up in committee and Greenwald reiterated that he could not attend committee meetings. Gereffi and Greenwald went back and forth about the matter for several minutes and Gereffi then asked the deputies to take Greenwald from the room ...Lakes Mayor Refuses Reform DiscussionBy TAO WOOLFE, Staff Writer
October 4, 1990

... Lauderdale Lakes resident Glenn Greenwald, 23, filed on Monday to run for a one-year term on the City Council. He has lived in the city for 22 years and ran unsuccessfully for office when he was 18 years old ...Five More Candidates Seek Government SeatsJanuary 9, 1991

LAUDERDALE LAKES -- A former City Council candidate who charged that his opponent`s candidacy was illegal and took the city to court will have to pay about $700 in court costs to the city, City Attorney James Brady said. Before the election, Glenn Greenwald, 23, had asked the court to prevent the city from putting Abe Hassing`s name on the ballot, claiming Hassing`s candidacy was illegal because he served on a city board and received a salary for his work. Election laws say that anyone who receives a salary for his work on a city board must resign before running for political office. City code said Hassing`s position was voluntary and his reimbursement was for expenses ...Ex-candidate Must Pay Court CostsMay 5, 1991

He got into repeated arguments with his next-door neighbor and finally sued over a minor property line dispute, winning $1 in damages. His neighbor countersued, claiming that Shuler had appropriated some of his belongings, and won compensation and probably lawyers' fees, in total $1525, which Shuler refused to pay. Several years later, Shuler started his blog to discuss these disputes, so the neighbor retaliated by insisting on payment of the $1525 he had won in court. Shuler took the view that all this was illegitimate and therefore required no action from him, so his home was sold for $1525. Later, Shuler went to court pro se attempting to overturn the sale and lost repeatedly. It's just nuts

The following is from the opinion in his Federal suit:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
29 December 2010
SHULER et al v SWATEK et al

... In 1998, McGarity purchased the property adjacent to Plaintiffs’home .. Since then, Roger Shuler and McGarity have embroiled themselves in several disputes, ranging from litigation to actual physical altercations. After several verbal spats regarding their shared property boundary, Roger Shuler initiated a criminal trespass suit against McGarity in the spring of 2000 wherein McGarity was acquitted. Shortly thereafter, McGarity filed suit against Roger Shuler, alleging malicious prosecution and conversion, seeking damages of $25,000 .. In the 2004 trial, the jury returned a verdict against McGarity on Shuler’s trespass counterclaim, awarding Shuler $1 in damages .. The jury also found that Shuler had converted McGarity’s property and awarded McGarity $1,525 in compensatory and punitive damages. In October 2006 .. Shuler and McGarity engaged in a physical altercation .. Plaintiffs reported the incident to the .. Sheriff’s Office, but chose not to file criminal charges ... In the summer of 2007 .. Shuler started a blog .. to discuss his troubles with McGarity ... This decision allegedly prompted McGarity to try to collect on the jury award he secured on the 2004 conversion claim ... Swatek applied for a writ of execution .. to seize Plaintiffs’ cars or home for a sheriff’s sale to pay the outstanding judgment. Plaintiffs received notice of levy .. informing Plaintiffs of the impending sale of their home and property ... Plaintiffs received over twenty-five (25) phone messages .. informing them of the upcoming sale and inquiring whether they had arranged a settlement ... Plaintiffs explained that they were not attempting to work out a settlement because they believed the original 2004 judgment against them was void and, in any event, they had claimed an exemption for their property ... Sheriff Curry’s office sought guidance from Judge Harrington ... Judge Harrington apparently disagreed with Plaintiffs’ position and ordered the sale to proceed ... Plaintiffs received notice of Judge Harrington’s order .. and admit that “the court file shows that Harrington indeed signed off on the sale” ... Plaintiffs contend .. Harrington “acted outside his official capacity” ... As a result, Plaintiffs did not appeal Judge Harrington’s order or take any other action to stop the sale ... The sheriff’s sale proceeded, as ordered ... Defendants have moved to dismiss ... For the reasons stated more fully below, the court DISMISSES this case ...

finding and downloading 550K+ documents/month during his short stint in Hawaii: it works out to an average of about 12 documents per minute, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, week after week after week

And how many of those documents could he have actually read?

There are 168 hours in a week, and he's gonna spend about 8 hrs/night asleep, leaving 112 hours. He also had a fulltime job, which leaves him about 70 hours, if we count (say) a fifteen minute one-way commute. Basic needs (dressing, showering and shaving and eating, &c) must chop the total down to perhaps 60 hours. He has to have clean clothes, grocery shop and cook and clean-up or grab take-out, gas the car, &c): say (generously) that leaves him about 55 hours. And there's the relationship with the girlfriend, who claims she didn't notice anything out of the ordinary, so beyond snoring beside her and maybe chatting while he gets ready for work or over meals, he's got to spend some quality time with her: watching TV or going to the movies with her, attending her performances, honey-do and other relationship maintenance: say that leaves him about 45 hours/week -- or 6 hours a day

In all he's got about 550 hours to review 1.7 million documents -- which works out to reviewing an impossible 50+ documents a minute. Of course, he didn't do that: he probably did mechanized searches of his downloaded collection: but let's ignore the time spent thinking up search criteria and programming the searches. At best, he'll skim about a document a minute visually -- and nobody can keep that up for 6 hours without becoming mentally exhausted: I'd guess the long-term average can't really be much better than 30 documents an hour, which puts him below 17K documents receiving even cursory examination

The conclusion is that Snowden glanced at no more than 1% of his download

Fascist authoritarians, like Pirate Bay founder Peter Sunde, were naturally outraged: Sunde, in a fit of pique, even reported Hillegren to the ombudsman for Swedish Justice! Nevertheless, Hillegren has maintained this heroic stance in the years since. In 2011, he reiterated his concern that emphasizing "consent" in rape cases would merely increase the conviction rate:

In recent years, there has been an intense opposition to sense and logic in sexual offenses legislation ... The opposition has been so successful that the law now has some remarkable features, such as rape without violence ... For .. Madeleine Leijonhufvud .. this is not embarrassing. She pleads .. for another bizarre innovation in sexual offenses legislation area, namely the introduction of a consent rule ... Sensible observers think that the bill Leijonhufvud advocates would lead to more convictions ... No one, least of all prospective rape victims, benefits from unnecessary laws.

Now everybody's hero is once again back in the news, demanding that Sweden should drop the charges against Assange. It is easy to see how this demand fits into Hillegren's general views: when deciding Sweden's extradition request in 2011, the UK magistrate at Belmarsh discussed the allegations in the warrant for Assange's arrest:

Assessing these allegations using Hillegren's 2009 theory of rape, we see that the supposed behavior does involve "a man and a woman who know each other," and that it is even a case in which "the man just goes ahead anyway," somehow neglecting to obtain consent -- which (by Hillegren's theory) is "not very nice" but perhaps "not worth two years in prison." And now, in his most recent foray into sex-crimes law, Hillegren offers this new and brilliant solution of the Assange stand-off:

... the Prosecutor should .. reverse the decision to reopen the investigation, revoke the detention order and withdraw the arrest warrant. Now someone might say that such a radical procedure would make it impossible for the two women to present their case as plaintiffs ... The state should therefore .. pay the damages that would be relevant if Assange had been prosecuted and convicted ... This would avoid any allegations that the women had been sidelined by the judiciary. This solution is appealing, not least in view of the State's responsibility for the situation ... And Assange could leave the embassy as a free man and not have to spend the next 27 years there.

Putting the pieces of the puzzle together, let's restate Hillegren's theory of sex-crimes: a man, who has sex with a woman he knows, without first obtaining consent, because the woman was thoughtlessly asleep when the man wanted sex, ought not be prosecuted, though if the woman feels injured by the occurrence then the state ought to pay her whatever damages she might have obtained from the man in a lawsuit, because the whole fuck-up is obviously the state's fault